<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2017 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'title' => 'Rushing through course readings',
	'body' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2017/02/14.jpg" alt="A purple flower poking out from beneath fallen leaves" class="weblog-header-image" width="800" height="480" />
<section id="advertisements">
	<h2>Unsponsored advertisements</h2>
	<p>
		Brad of <a href="http://www.bradsucks.net./">Brad Sucks</a> sent out a newsletter today, informing us that their new album, A New Low in Hi-Fi, has seen a lot of progress!
		Apparently, all the demos are done, so I guess that the main things left to do would be to fine-tune the songs, re-record them, and splice the sound files together (as Brad plays the instruments and sings, so several recordings get layered together).
		They also included a line that I found humorous near the top of the top of the letter:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			But in the meantime, sit back, open your minds and eyes and get ready to read my hot takes on American politics! Just kidding, I&apos;m Canadian and also have no opinions.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
<section id="general">
	<h2>General news</h2>
	<p>
		Today, Tuesday, is supposed to be laundry day.
		However, I&apos;m way too far behind in my coursework to do laundry.
		My mother wants to start moving their stuff into my apartment to store it, but not tonight.
		I should be able to help them with that tomorrow after they get back from work, but I can&apos;t.
		Again, I&apos;m too far behind in my coursework.
		We&apos;ll have to do it on the weekend, when they don&apos;t have work, or on Monday, when we both work morning shifts and have the evening off.
	</p>
	<p>
		My <a href="/a/canary.txt">canary</a> still sings the tune of freedom and transparency.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="university">
	<h2>University life</h2>
	<p>
		I did a lot of reading to try to catch up with my courses today.
		Unfortunately, countless problems keep popping up and keeping my study time at a minimum.
		I made my initial discussion post for <span title="Ethics and Social Responsibility">PHIL 1404</span>, but I still have lots to do.
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Nietzsche&apos;s eternal return is a thought experiment that involves reliving your life identically forever.
			What it tries to do is help you find the choices that you would make given that you have to live the results forever.
			Tanksley says that they wouldn&apos;t change a thing if they could do it all again.
			This shows that they could live with their decision at least twice (this iteration and the next).
			They find their job fun because it is one that allows them to exercise their creativity.
			In theory, does this mean that Tanksley&apos;s life is a great example of a life well-lived according to the eternal return?
			I&apos;m not so sure.
		</p>
		<p>
			I think that Nietzsche&apos;s eternal return is flawed, at least in standard use.
			Only two cases can be accurate: you either keep your memories between iterations or you don&apos;t.
			If you keep your memories, exiting lives will become boring.
			You&apos;ll know what will happen before it happens, but not be able to change anything.
			You might not keep track of every little detail, but you&apos;ll know the gist of how things will go down; you&apos;ll know the results of any important decision, and no threat to your life that isn&apos;t actually going to kill you will have any thrill.
			On the other hand, if you don&apos;t keep your memories between iterations, you&apos;re basically living your life once.
			You&apos;re stuck with your decisions only once, just like in the real world.
			I mean, sure, you&apos;ll be doing it all again in eighty years, but if you could live with it once, you&apos;ll be able to live with it an infinite number of &quot;first&quot; times.
		</p>
		<p>
			If we assume the first option, that we keep our memories, our only logical choice is to seek out that which we enjoy, but that which cannot become boring.
			Perhaps you enjoy a weekly jog in the park.
			It&apos;s always mostly the same, but the fresh air and exercise is nice.
			Or perhaps you enjoy spending time with family, even performing activities that you&apos;ve done a thousand times over already.
			Trying to actually achieve anything is pointless, as everything that you do will be undone and you&apos;ll be doing it anew.
			If we assume the latter, that you don&apos;t remember, the eternal return becomes useless as a tool.
		</p>
		<p>
			We also have to assume that we&apos;re not different that those around us.
			They&apos;ve got the same eternal-return-type loop that we do.
			What if the eternal return doesn&apos;t throw morality out the window?
			What if it makes our responsibilities to others that much more important?
			If you spend your life improving the life of someone else, their eternal cycle will be that much better for them.
		</p>
		<p>
			If Tanksley derives fun from creativity, how will they feel when trapped in an endless loop in which they already know what they came up with and can&apos;t creatively take a new path?
			While I personally find value in creativity, the eternal return doesn&apos;t honestly reward that.
			All creativity ceases to exist after the first iteration.
			Tanksley talks about a sea of possibilities, but none of those possibilities will exist in the next loop; only one path will be available.
			That said, Tanksley also likes to empower and inspire people.
			In the eternal return, Tanksley would be able to help these people with their own eternal returns.
			If empowering and inspiring people is also rewarding, Tanksley&apos;s life could be a great example of a life well lived according to Nietzsche&apos;s eternal return.
		</p>
		<p>
			And yes, I&apos;ve been told that I over-think things, but I don&apos;t think that we can make meaningful decisions or observations without looking more deeply into things than most people tend to.
		</p>
		<p>
			I think that Nietzsche&apos;s point with the eternal return is to live for yourself.
			Instead of considering the effects on everyone else, just do what you&apos;d be happy doing forever.
			However, it isn&apos;t really exemplified as well with Wallace Souza&apos;s life as the text suggests.
			Souza&apos;s career as a politician gives them a lot of power, which would be eternally rewarded.
			While Souza only gets to make the decision once, their choices hold power over many other people&apos;s eternities.
			However, the excitement offered by their drug dealing, murders, and reporting don&apos;t have nearly the same eternal reward.
			Once you know how all of that will play out, there&apos;s no longer any chance; no risk and no thrill.
			However, Nietzsche&apos;s goal, I think, was to make people choose to live for themselves and not for others.
			Culture is all relative, as Nietzsche understood, so there&apos;s no point (according to Nietzsche) in trying to conform to what others want you to do.
			The concept of living only for oneself frees one from the shackles of both their own culture and the cultures of those around them.
		</p>
		<p>
			Those that subscribe to the eternal return method of decision-making would probably applaud Tanksley&apos;s motives, if they really think about it.
			On the surface, it looks like Tanksley is living for the sake of others.
			An eternal returnist wouldn&apos;t agree with this type of life.
			However, if you read carefully, helping others &quot;ignites [their] passion for people&quot;.
			In other words, Tanksley is living a life that they&apos;re passionate about.
			Furthermore, Tanksley would do it all again just the same.
			Is that not the definition of how the eternal return method is supposed to work?
		</p>
		<p>
			To decide whether I&apos;d rather live Tanksley&apos;s eternal return or Souza&apos;s, I&apos;m going to have to dive back into the realm of &quot;over-thinking&quot;; the only way that I know how to analyze things that matter is very throughly.
			I don&apos;t think that anything truly matters.
			We&apos;re all going to die and everything that we were is going to be lost forever; I don&apos;t believe in an afterlife.
			The sun is going to cook the earth as it expands; it&apos;ll get too close to the earth and all life here will die.
			After everything&apos;s dead, the sun will eventually engulf the earth and it too will be gone.
			In theory, I should be an amoral monster.
			However, I do care and I do prefer to act like things actually do matter.
			I would rather spend an eternity helping people make connections and inspiring people than spend an eternity putting hits on people to both fuel my reporting career and take out the competition of my illegal drug ring.
			Even though I don&apos;t think that anything matters when I really think about it, I&apos;m not a violent person and instead want everyone to prosper and be happy.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
END
);
